number of procedural subjects 596 or the number of victims; 597 iii) the time elapsed since the violation; 598 iv) the characteristics of the remedies available under domestic law, 599 and v) the context in which the facts occurred. 600 With regard to the second element, namely the procedural activity of the interested party, the Court has considered whether the parties took the necessary steps in the proceedings that could reasonably be expected of them. 601 As for the third element, that is, the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court has considered that the judges have the duty to direct and guide the process, so as not to sacrifice justice and due legal process in favor of formalism. 602 In relation to the fourth element, that is, the effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings, the Court has established that the authorities must act with greater diligence in cases where the protection of other rights of the parties involved depends on the duration of the process. 603 425. With respect to the complexity of Mr. Martínez’ case, the Court notes that on September 7, 2000, the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José ordered - in view of the number of documents that formed part of the indictment- the complex processing of the case file, considering that this would “facilitate the doubling of the deadlines established in favor of the parties to allow them to carry out the procedural actions.” Moreover, the criminal indictment consisted 135 pages and included 276 facts. The complexity of this process also lay in the fact that it was a criminal case with a plurality of defendants, since there were four defendants and 19 civil defendants. 604 In addition, Mr. Martínez faced charges for 12 crimes of embezzlement. Therefore, this Court considers that there are sufficient elements to conclude that Mr. Martinez's case was a complex criminal case. 426. With regard to the procedural actions carried out by Mr. Martínez, the Special Duty Criminal Court, in its decision of August 22, 1998, found that he was apparently involved in pressuring a witness “so that he would not talk” and participated in the “theft of public documents [to] proceed with their destruction.” 605 On the other hand, it is an undisputed fact that on November 28, 1999, Mr. Martínez Meléndez applied for refugee status in Canada. On December 13, 1999, he was declared in contempt of court, and on December 16, 1999, an Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 106, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil, supra, para. 137. 597 Cf. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 156, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil, supra, para. 137. 598 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra, para. 150, and Case Pacheco León and et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 122. 599 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, Para. 83, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil, supra, para. 137. 600 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua, supra, paras. 78 and 79, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil, supra, para. 137. 601 Cf. Case of Fornerón and Daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 69, and Case Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia, supra, para. 158. 602 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 211, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil, supra, para. 144. 603 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 155, and Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia, supra, para. 158. 604 Cf. Decision of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, of September 7, 2000 (evidence file, folio 2054). Article 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at that time established the procedure for processing complex matters: “Admissibility. When the processing is complex due to the multiplicity of facts, the large number of defendants or victims or when it involves cases related to the investigation of any form of organized crime, the court, ex officio or at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, may authorize, through a reasoned decision, the application of the special rules provided for in this Title […].” 605 Cf. Decision of the Special Duty Criminal Court of August 22, 1998, (evidence file, folio 26262). 596 132